. Richard North at his EU Referendum blog caught a live one:
‘Nick Clarke, interviewer for BBC Radio 4’s World at One, ran an outrageous puff for the EU constitution on today’s programme.
But what really gave the game away was Clarke’s own comment. Interviewing John Bruton, now the EU ambassador to Washington on the “positive” aspects on the constitution (which, incidentally, included to the “right” to withdraw), the egregious Clarke noted that these were the arguments that were going to have to be used by proponents of the idea.
But then he added: “…sadly, the sentiment is against that at the moment”. Sadly?!
Well, at least we know where he stands.‘
Is it necessary to add that the BBC have no business expressing their opinions on this matter, certainly not in such a context?
Ed
“Is it necessary to add that the BBC have no business expressing their opinions on this matter, certainly not in such a context?”
To regulars here, probably not. To BBC Governors, yes. To BBC staff, they probably wouldn’t realise there’s anything wrong in stating such an obviously ‘correct’ position.
It reminds me of an opening line to an interview I heard on 5 Live some time ago:
Interviewer (whose name I forget) – “You’re a Conserative MP and a Eurosceptic. I don’t know which to criticise you for first.”
The only response is to not allow your money to be taken from you.
An interesting snippet of information from the Bishop Hill blog: in the last financial year the BBC borrowed 75 million pounds from the European Investment Bank. These “loans” are detailed in the BBC’s 2004 financial report: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2004/text/financial_statements_review.html)
The European Investment Bank loans money (our tax money) on a non-profit basis to “finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies” (www.eib.org). I’m not saying that the BBC wouldn’t be pro-EU anyway (europhilia appears to be the default Guardian position, after all), but there is something rather fishy about this.
David H –
That’s an amazing fact! Quite incredible. It deserves to be more widely known – thanks for letting us know.
OFF message (or maybe not):
On Radio 4 News Quiz they were having a go at Kirsty Wark – as they should for her disgraceful cozying up to powerful Labour politicians. Simon “Shagger” Hoggart makes a joke about this referring to her having close contact with Michael Howard which of course immediately neutralises the whole point of the Wark story which is that she (and most BBC folk) wouldn’t be seen dead with Tories.
Oh, but does not Ms Kim Quinn count as a Tory, given her connections with the Spectator? It was intriguing that the Quinn saga was not touched upon by the News Quiz.
OT
did anyone catch the C4 program at 6pm on saturday? At last, a sensible questioning of the so called “islamophobia” that supposedly exists in every corner of British life … and thankfully presented by a muslim (kehan malik)with his head seemingly screwed on right.
In case ya missed it, the premise of the report was that accusations of islamophobia are being used by various groups to suppress free criticism of unpalatable philosophies and practices within the islamic community.
But then we all knew that anyway, didnt we?
Somehow couldnt imagine the beeb showing this.
I hope no one here is being adversely affected by these horrible floods and power outages in some parts of the UK. Things are pretty wet where I live too; we expect some problems in the floodier areas too if the torrents keep up.
Greetings,
Butting in here, with a question. Does anyone know when the BBC is going to address the coming clash of civilizations ? I would wonder how they would frame such a response or inquiry.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
I was wondering about this site – it seems to bend over backwards sometimes to accuse the BBC of bias by looking at completely unrelated reports on different programmes and even medium and comparing snippets of each, for example “American’s paying their share” on one BBC programme, while “muslims in Hendon pay all they can” on another completely different one. Which makes you wonder, would it be better for the BBC to constantly praise the USA, the war in Iraq, Israel, and so on? Is it possible that it is presenting the truth about these things? It seems a fairly unavoidable conclusion to me that most folk in britain are extremely sceptical of all these things, and that to present them in an “unbiased” light such as this site would prefer would in fact mean to sweep all sorts of iniquities under the carpet.
I’ll agree that the BBC certainly does have a bias towards the left in general, and that’s regrettable – especially to a conservative like myself. But I don’t think it i
Anon: I was wondering about this site – it seems to bend over backwards sometimes to accuse the BBC of bias by looking at completely unrelated reports on different programmes and even medium and comparing snippets of each, for example “American’s paying their share” on one BBC programme, while “muslims in Hendon pay all they can” on another completely different one.”
No Anon, the two sentences were part of the *same* news report on the *same* subject in the *same* news programme – admittedly they were different reporters – one here, one in the USA – but the interesting thing is the downplaying of American aid efforts in contrast to the up-playing of Muslim efforts – what was the point of either? Why did the programme’s producer let this happen? Good people everywhere are and have been doing their best to help their fellow humans cope with the effects of this tragedy. Why does the BBC, most likley inadvertantly, spin things this way though?
Anon: I’ll agree that
cont/.
Anon: I’ll agree that the BBC certainly does have a bias towards the left in general, and that’s regrettable
And that is the problem – it’s not necessarily deliberate or overt – but it is there and it does affect our country, our culture and other parts of the world over which the BBC has influence too.
dodo: “did anyone catch the C4 program at 6pm on saturday? At last, a sensible questioning of the so called “islamophobia” that supposedly exists in every corner of British life … and thankfully presented by a muslim (kehan malik)with his head seemingly screwed on right.”
No, but have trawled the web a bit – there’s a discussion forum at Channel 4 dealing with the programme – some of it sensible, some of it quite ignorant, including the citation of this flawed BBC report as evidence of Islamophobia. What a surprise – one could almost predict this rehashing of flawed BBC reporting as if it was now established fact!
The writer of the C4 programme, Kenan Malik, has his own website at
cont/.
The writer of the C4 programme, Kenan Malik, has his own website at http://www.kenanmalik.com.
I wonder if/when this programme will be repeated.
OT
Friday’s six o’clock news on BBC1 contained a telling snip showing a US helicopter coming in to land in Aceh with the comments ‘this is a US helicopter supposed to be delivering aid’ cut to the ground where, unsurprisingly, a mini tornado is created, ‘but all it causes is chaos’
Also OT
I saw an interview with Kimberley Quinn several months ago and before all the ferfuffle over her sex life, when she admitted to being a ‘liberal/leftie’.
The UN in Aceh/Sumatra have been running a PR campaign against the huge US/Aussie relief effort – to cover the UN’s own lamentable failure to deliver any real aid. And of course the BBC and Guardian have been suckered into believing the UN lies. But at least the FT can be relied on to tell the truth – on Saturday they commented on local complaints that the UN had done absolutely nothing to help in Aceh.
On-the-spot commentary at
diplomad.blogspot.com
over the past 10 days gives a graphic description of the UN combination of incompetence and high-living. This failure is worse than the UN oil scandal and the Congo sex scandal – neither of which gets more than a fleeting mention by the BBC. (Contrast that with Abu Ghraib which got round-the-clock coverage and is still a favourite BBC topic.)
If Aceh had had to rely on the UN, many many thousands more people would have been dead by now.
Peter
I saw the appallingly snide jibe by the BBC reporter about the US helicopter and if I’d been online at the time I would have mentioned it. typical BBC cheap shot given that the USS Abraham Lincoln Battle Group have delivered more real aid that any other single entity so far.
Here is a detailed account of the logistics of the US/Aussie/Singaporean air operations to assist Aceh province. From which you will gather that the N itself id doing precisely nothing. Worse – it is getting in the way of vital aid work, and criticising those who are doing the work.
Absolutely sickening. No doubt Newsnight or Panorama are preparing an expose of this disgraceful UN failure in Aceh. Yeah, sure !
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2005/01/banda-aceh-logistics-basics.html
OT
As the BBC had a lunatic webpage giving credence to the idea that the terrible Americans had an evil Diego Garcia plot – Alan Brain posits a similarly ludicrous notion that the BBC is at the heart of all the child-kidnapping that has followed the Tsunami :
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbcs-malign-hand-at-work.html
Same difference ? But at least Brain declares that his piece is nonsense.
OT
Re garding L’Affaire Wark. The BBC’s view of thew world is perhaps best captured by comparing La Wark’s demeanour toward the two main parties. The Labour party is cosied up to in the shape of Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell and his Hognmanay hospitality chez Kirsty whereas the Tory party is lampooned by her participation in a sketch on Dead Ringers where a mimic impersonates Michael Howard while being ‘interviewed’ by the presenter in question. How objective. How unbiased.
OT
An interesting piece from Today’s Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386007,00.html
An end to the poll tax? We can but hope.
OT
The “anti-US insurgency” begins at home.
The current political arrangements in Iraq, including the sovereign Iraqi interim government and its specific security relationship with the multinational force, have been awarded the full ‘moral authority’ of a unanimous UN Security Council resolution (1546/2004):
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
Something the BBC cannot be unaware of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3788607.stm
Nevertheless the BBC prefers to misrepresent violent, terroristic opposition to these legitimate arrangements as a specifically “anti-US insurgency”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4158463.stm
Placing it in an over-spun story about a tragic targeting error is a useful technique, all helpful in the BBC’s ongoing efforts to attack the US.
.
“It’s Offical, the BBC is a Turn-off”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386007,00.html
The last figures I saw showed the BBC spending as much on TV programme production as all the other channels combined. Brilliant – 50% of spending to win just over 30% of the audience. That is a reflection of the BBC’s gross overspending of licence-payers’ money.
BBC TV News always cost far more to poout together than Sky, for example. Big spending by the BBC for an often poor and biased product.
When do you ever not know where the BBC stands? The one thing they don’t club you over the head with is subtlety.
I’m American, but I was in England when the war in Iraq started. At first I thought the BBC coverage was some kind of satirical skit, it was so cartoonishly hostile to the Coalition. It seriously took me at least 5 minutes to figure out that what I was watching was supposed to be news, and that I wasn’t supposed to be laughing.
Sounds as though Kirsty Wark will be stopped from doing the Scottish election-night coverage. But how about sacking her from Newsnight ? Pusillanimous BBC management will probably cover her back.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1431590,00.html
“Is it necessary to add that the BBC have no business expressing their opinions on this matter, certainly not in such a context?”
Yes, it is. Because producer guidelines at the BBC are just never enforced. The British public simply need to know about this. The more times they hear of it – the better.
Even is producer guidelines were being enforced, there would still be a way for BBC staff, who are in total control, to get around them.(i.e. Riddle me this Batman: When is an opinion not an opinion? When you call it ‘Analysis’). Voila!
The BBC constantly analyses the entire political landscape on a daily basis; and thus, it is constantly forcing its own “opinions” on a totally brainwashed population.
Final thought: George Orwell was about 20 years off the mark with his title 1984 – try 2004.
Papa Ray: Greetings to you, too. To answer your question: The BBC in its present incarnation will never address the clash of civilisations in a way that reflects the reality which you refer to. But I guess you knew that. 🙂
This coming clash is the greatest threat we face today. All other considerations are small beer beside it. In the end, however, the West will win and that backward* muslim world will pay a dreadful price, and rightly so. But the West won’t get off free, not without its civilisation being severely cracked and not without the strong possibility of its democracy being destroyed, the very democracy which is supposed act as the crack-prevention mechanism. And all this because democracy itself has been at best neglected, but mostly at worst undermined, by our politicians.
Even in the West, civilisation is only a thin veneer, and when ours cracks, as crack it will, given the current stresses it is subject to, bias at the BBC will no longer be a concern — there ju
… — there just won’t be any BBC. Of course, in principle we could prevent the fissures — we could face up to their causes and finally begin to deal with them today. But recognition of stark realities is not possible under the current political set-up (in the UK and the eu, at least), which consists of very imperfect instantiations of democracy — ones in thrall, in particular, to a highly sclerotic, ‘politically correct’, utopian/socialist ideology. Even conservative leadership in the UK kow-tows to this to an extent that renders it useless as a countervailing force. Moreover, the trend is worsening. It is a great shame.
A sine qua non** for any democracy is that its citizens be willing to be governed by their (so-called) fellow countrymen. That willingness is fast disappearing. Muslim and other alien immigration has seen to that. There never was a democratic mandate for it. It is resented and always has been by a great majority. Very little is being done to stem its tide, an
…Very little is being done to stem its tide, and nothing to start its much-needed reversal. On the contrary, and despite the politicians’ charades, it is effectively being encouraged. This is where things will crack. The existing ‘democratic’ institutions just won’t hold under the terrible forces unleashed. Whether we can subsequently repair the damage is anyone’s guess. That is the great shame of it. We’ll end up possibly destroying our own democratic civilisation ‘as we know it’, all for some stupid, sanctimonious pipe dream — one which only a very few of us ever shared, and one which would never have been pursued had our politicians been true democrats, of the right or the left.
Now I really must get back to more pressing matters — planning this year’s holiday in the sun, replacing our garden furniture (now that my neighbour has just upgraded his), checking out the new digital televisions (for the same reason)… So I hope you’ll excuse me.
* ‘backward’ is, of
…
* ‘backward’ is, of course, redundant.
** Imagine a democratic Yugoslavia, for instance. Ha! Yes! The eu? For that matter, imagine a BBC discussion on the condition.
Check out this dressing down of the BBC by The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/nbook09.xml
Scroll down to this:
Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia’s tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this.
There’s more. 🙂
There was an interesting article in the Financial Times on Saturday about a new strategy potentially being adopted by the (ahem) Guardian. The intention is that although the dubious left wing opinion pieces will remain, there will be a clear divide between these and the news pages which will be entirely depoliticised and based on interpretation of the facts as they arise.
Given the arguments about whether it is possible to have ‘unbiased’ news it’ll be revealing to see where this goes. If it is a widely acknowledged success it’ll have some pretty serious implications for the BBC’s claims of impartiality.
marc
The brilliant diplomadic.blogspot.com has given painful accounts of the total uselessness of the UN compared to the US and OZ military efforts.
On the BBC website a story today underlines the gap, talking about the first effort to do anything from Jakarta where UN dignitaries junket in 5-star hotels :
“Preparations are under way in Indonesia for sending the first major overland aid convoy to Aceh as airports struggle to cope with supplies.
The lorries setting out from Jakarta will be carrying enough used clothes, medicines and shelter equipment to fill four Hercules aircraft.
After crossing the island of Java by ferry to the southernmost post of Sumatra, the convoy will have to drive the length of the island – some 2,500km – before reaching its destination. ”
Brilliant. They might even get to the disaster scene three weeks after the event.
The BBC has performed disgracefull;y in its reports on Aceh, always pandering to the UN line of nonsense and downp
Change if tack? News24 discusion on future for West Bank/Gaza. Interviewees were David Aaronovitch & Ann Leslie.
(was at 2am however – though probably shown at other times)
Dan –
I don’t think anyone would deny there are instances of good programming on BBC. I heard what sounded like a pretty balanced account of the EU withdrawal movement.
I think the problems are more structural e.g. recruiting only via the Guardian media pages; allowing reporters licence to peddle views and “explain” things to the audience; failure to appoint any effective watchdogs (who might query why we can watch Jerry Springer – teh Opera but not an abortion being performed).
When are we going to get more BBC staff cuts? Blue Peter needed only 2 presenters when I was a child – now it needs 4. Also, during weekday afternoons they showed the testcard which was of higher quality and a lot cheaper than the stuff they show at those times now.
Every single Europe ‘on the record’ show I’ve seen has been a complete fix.
The panel is ALWAYS loaded to the left, a clear majority of panelists are europhiles, and even the presenter (that irritating french bird) is in on the act.
They usually have a solitary UKIP guy on, but he is ALWAYS filibustered every time he tries to make a point.
“You’re living in a fantasy world!”
“You’re living in a fantasy world!”
“You take the wages but don’t do the job”
“You take the wages but don’t do the job”
“You’re living in a fantasy world!”
“You’re living in a fantasy world!”
You almost find yourself pulling your hair out listening to this kind of Orwellian left wing lynching. It’s even worse than question time.
For me, the problems at the BBC run deep, very deep.
The BBC hired the former head of Al Jazeera to train their reporters on how to report on Arabic stories for their Arabic news service.
The BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Barbara Plett, crying when Arafat’s helocopter left to take him to France.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/06/nbeeb06.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/06/ixhome.html
BBC Reporter Hannah Bayman used to have a blog wherein she ridiculed Bush. The link doesn’t work anymore but I save her comments on my blog.
Hannah even gleefully reminds us to tune into “BBC Radio Two and you will hear the delightful former royal correspondent Jenny Bond describe Bush as “looking like a chimp and talking like a baboon”.
There needs to be some external control over the BBC and the TV tax should be abolshed.
Thank you, Mr. Archer.
From your post:
“…Very little is being done to stem its tide, and nothing to start its much-needed reversal. On the contrary, and despite the politicians’ charades, it is effectively being encouraged. This is where things will crack. The existing ‘democratic’ institutions just won’t hold under the terrible forces unleashed. Whether we can subsequently repair the damage is anyone’s guess. That is the great shame of it. We’ll end up possibly destroying our own democratic civilisation ‘as we know it’, all for some stupid, sanctimonious pipe dream — one which only a very few of us ever shared, and one which would never have been pursued had our politicians been true democrats, of the right or the left”.
I am horrified to admit that I knew your answer before you posted it. I must be demented for even wanted my fears to be confirmed.
For myself (I don’t know where you live), I am preparing for the worst. I hate to invest so much time and money
continued..
I hate to invest so much time and money, but I must for my children and my four grandchildren.
For those of you Europe, I am afraid there will be no escape and your end will come sooner rather than later.
Of course, you could stand in line, trying to get into the US, but I am afraid by that time, they will be turning refugees away by the millions.
Meanwhile, Americans (at least in the Southwest and Southern parts) will be quitly buying, stocking, building and preparing for the coming hordes of destruction.
“For those of you Europe, I am afraid there will be no escape and your end will come sooner rather than later.
Of course, you could stand in line, trying to get into the US, but I am afraid by that time, they will be turning refugees away by the millions.”
Well.. theres always Canada 🙂
Canada is more like France than the US these days. Well the ‘intellectual’ powerbase is anyway.
More (subtle) Europhile bias.
“Spain’s football clubs are trying to encourage fans to vote in the referendum because the EU constitution is vital for the future of Europe”.
Key words are ‘Future’ and ‘vital’. It’s quite subtle but you’re left with the impression that anything counter to the constitution would imperil the future for which the constitution will contribute positively.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4160795.stm
Papa,
Have you been to Europe recently? This might come as a shock but we don’t spend a huge amount of time worrying about the coming apocalyptic clash of civilisations and the most practical bother most of us have with muslims is being unable to use the stationery cupboard at work because some bloke is praying in there.
Thanks for your concern though.
cockney
But too many guys praying in storecupboards ARE the threat – they are praying for the dhimmitude of Europe !
I understand from my Muslim colleagues that they’re normally praying for the f*cking photocopier to start working.